To Make Better Choices, Imagine a Gun to Your Head

In a previous post, I argued that the only way to realize positive change in your life is by making choices. To use this insight it is of course necessary to know when one has a choice and when one doesn't.

In this post, I share a simple, portable technique for drawing this distinction.

Often when we were up against a time constraint that seemed impossible to overcome, my doctoral advisor would say, “If someone put a gun to our heads, could we get this done?” The answer wasn’t always yes, but it was surprising to me how that which seemed impossible was indeed possible if we directed all of our attention, motivation, and ability to the task—and nothing else.

I always liked the “gun” question because I could even use it on myself to separate fungible constraints from truly immutable ones, revealing what was actually possible if I decided that the job at hand was in fact the most important in the world.

The “gun” question can be adapted for other purposes as well. Maybe the most fundamental purpose for it that I have found is to use it to reveal when I have a choice. This version of the question is as follows: “If someone put a gun to my head, could I do X?”

Notice that this version of the gun question does not focus on whether something could be completed in time, but instead it focuses on whether or not something is possible at all. If my answer is “yes,” then I know I have a choice. If the answer is “no,” then I know I don’t.

For example, if someone pointed a gun at me and told me that if I didn’t dunk a basketball on a 10-foot hoop I would die, then I wouldn’t have a choice because I cannot dunk a basketball on a 10-foot hoop. The physical constraints are immutable—I cannot by myself generate enough upward force to dunk a basketball on a 10-foot hoop. I cannot choose dunking over death. More generally, I cannot choose dunking a basketball over anything because it is simply not an option available to me. But if someone pointed a gun at me and told me to eat a cockroach or I would die, I would have a choice—not be a pleasant choice, but still mine to make.

Why would a guy like me, who doesn’t particularly like guns, embrace this “gun to my head” question? Partly because the question is portable. But the main reason is because the thought experiment provides useful information in three ways:

1. Since the only way to realize positive change in our lives is by making choices, one of the keys to making positive change lies in having the wisdom to know the difference between when we have a choice and when we do not. The gun question’s ability to remove false constraints helps reveal when a choice exists and when it doesn’t.

Much of the time, the question will reveal that we have a choice, where we previously believed there was none. For example, it would reveal that it is our choice whether to forgive a relative who disinherited us. It would reveal that it is our choice whether we encourage an ailing parent to undergo another round of chemotherapy. And it would reveal that we have the choice to decide whether to eat that cupcake or not. When these actions are considered against the alternative of being shot in the head, it is clear they are superior and that we can take them. Thus, we have a choice.

2. I also find the question useful because of the insight that making a good choice often depends less on picking the best alternative from those immediately available, and more on identifying new alternatives that are initially hidden. For me, ratcheting up the negative consequences helps surface these hidden choice alternatives. For example, I might consider deep frying the cockroach because most fried foods are crunchy and tasty.

3. The final reason I find the question so useful stems from its ability to help me identify truly immutable constraints, thereby revealing situations where no choice exists. The truth of the matter is that I cannot outpace my colleagues at research, service, and teaching, while being a good father to my children and sleeping enough to stay healthy. It doesn’t matter if there is a gun to my head or not because in a world in which people specialize, I simply cannot be the best at everything. It's not an option. Knowing this helps me focus on the choices I can make to exact positive change in my life.

In sum, the “gun” question helps: illuminate a choice where you might initially believe no choice exists; surface alternatives you might otherwise overlook; and reveal those situations where no choice actually exists. Another way to represent these benefits is to convert Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer into a choice motto that reads something like:

Give me the grace to accept when I Do Not have a choice, the courage to admit when I Do have a choice, and the wisdom to distinguish one from the other.

The “gun to my head” question helps us realize all three elements of this motto. It reveals situations where no choice exists, it surfaces choices that might have been overlooked, and in doing so it provides the wisdom to distinguish situations where there is no choice from those where there is. So the next time it seems like you don’t have a choice, I suggest that you ask yourself: “If someone put a gun to my head, could I do this?”

The gun question's certainly a useful technique, but to a point. It has its limitations. A key weakness in the gun question is that it's constrained by one's own risk tolerance, self-awareness, and knowledge, among other factors.

For one, it's very dependent on one's confidence. Let's revisit the first question: "If someone put a gun to our heads, could we get this done?" If your answer is "no," then you assume you don't have choice, but that's not necessarily the case. It would be more accurate to say that you don't believe you have a choice. What the gun question doesn't quite address is that in deciding whether or not you have a choice, you are also making a choice. In effect, you are making a choice about making a choice, and not all choices are clear-cut.

This particular weakness in the gun question is also the reason why it doesn't always reveal "choice alternatives". Alternatives will surface if you choose to seek them or if you choose to want to seek them. For instance, by saying that you "cannot choose dunking a basketball over anything," you made a choice not to seek alternatives. For instance, who's to say you can't dunk a basketball if the net's only as tall as you?

I actually agree with the author of the article. These limitations that you are talking about are actually a part of yourself and this technique is to be applied on YOURSELF. So, if you believe, as you say, that you could never ever write an autobiography, even if you had a gun to your head, it doesn't mean that you can, but you just don't want to see it, it just means that you are in no way the kind of person who could write an autobiography, ever.
If you go to another person, who is totally into writing and you ask them to make that choice, they would definitely pick another answer, but we are talking about different persons. The method is universal, you just need to accept that people are different.
I don't know if I made myself understood with this...

Kenii, the point is when there isn't an alternative. If I put a gun to your head and say "lift the five ton weight or I'll shoot you", the option isn't to lift a weight within your capability. It's THAT weight, or your brains get blown out. No choice, no options.

The other place it's limited is where the outcomes aren't different: if I put a gun to your head and tell you to jump off a ten storey building, you die from the impact or from a gunshot. You're dead no matter what. There's a choice, but it's a false choice because the outcomes aren't different. You're still dying as a result of someone else's act - they make you jump or shoot you.

I agree that the "Gun to Your Head" technique is an exceptionally strong tool for mobilizing one's inner resources. The technique especially excels when dealing with deadlines as it encourages one to develop the most efficient strategy for completing the task and pushes aside all distractions.

Kenii's comment that this technique is "constrained by one's own risk tolerance, self-awareness, and knowledge, among other factors" is very true. Because your brain realizes that there is no actual gun, it will not concede if the task at hand is particularly unappealing. This varies by individual but I would imagine many people could not motivate themselves enough to go on a roller coaster, talk to a pretty girl, or ask their bosses for a raise by imagining a hypothetical gun pointed at their heads if they found these tasks terrifying. They would simply think, consciously or subconsciously, that the gun isn't real thus stripping the power of the technique. Of course, there is no simple phrase that could motivate a person to get over his deepest fear.

For scenarios like these, I often find myself believing that another technique (that might rival the "Gun to Your Head" technique in its ability to empower an individual) may be more helpful. Certainly the effectiveness of each technique depends on each individual, and the "Gun to Your Head" technique applies to many more scenarios. I am fond of asking the question "What would I do if I were 10 times bolder/confident?" By asking this question, one tends to focus on specific actions yielding positive outcomes. In terms of the roller coaster example, after asking "What would I do if I were 10x bolder?" I could reply by saying I'd sit in the front row and keep my hands up the whole ride and laugh and scream my head off!! In this way, one focuses on the positive experiences. However, once you've convinced yourself to get on the roller coaster you may decide to temper your action and just sit in the middle row.

Congrats on finding a motivator to help you get S%*# done. I don't think it's a healthy one. Imagining a gun to your head is like self inducing PTSD. The Jews in Nazi Germany had guns to their heads and I don't think they would find it therapeutic to relive such things for the sake of getting things done. I am certain there are better quantifiers to motivate yourself than this.

In these days of gun control and public shootings like the recent military base and Newtown now over a year hence, I think this sets a bag example for technique. I am having a log of trauma with this. I hope I can go on.

This question makes us to do certain tasks, with full focus, concentration and speed. But as kenii said this technique is "constrained by one's own risk tolerance, self-awareness, and knowledge, among other factors". This technique breaks one's own confidence and faith in achieving his dreams. Everybody puts his life as the first priority. There are chances when a person decides this way: "Though achieving this one is my dream, I won't do it if someone points a gun at my head. I would rather drop my passions and dreams if my life is at stake." This question reduces one's hopes, will and perseverance to achieve something. A person's ability to hold on to his passion is weakened.

My previous boss would threaten co-workers and myself with our jobs. He would accomplish the results he wanted with no regard to our personal and families sacrifices. Ethics and fair business values were out the door. To motivate you with a imaginary gun, threats to your job, threats with violence or verbal abuse will only demoralize and work short term. I prefer inspirational messages and advice from co-workers and friends and reading motivational positive tips from magazines like Psychology Today. That's is something I can look back with fondness, and smile.